2020 Democrats

[squatz1]

I don't think we have to set it up to the degree of -- potential to change the outcome of an election -- but I still do agree with the sentiment here. I doubt there are many cases that can be found of voter fraud to begin with, let along with the chance of changing the outcome of the election.

A vote that is illegal is a problem even if it doesn't change the outcome of the election -- effectively it cancels out the vote of someone who is legally allowed to vote. But yes, there should obviously be more attention given to the time where the outcome of the election was (or could've) been altered.

Absolutely, fraud is fraud and needs to be prosecuted regardless if it's successful or not. I'm just saying that this whole idea that Democrats (or Republicans) engage in election fraud on a massive scale is far from a "documented fact" and it doesn't really make much sense that a political party commits such massive fraud but it doesn't affect the outcome and they never get caught.

BTW many types of election fraud are federal crimes even if committed in local elections. So the conspiracy theory that states are hiding something doesn't make much sense either. Trump could send the FBI (or the Space Force since he obviously doesn't trust the FBI) and blow this thing wide open.

Oh yeah you're totally right when it comes to this. This is why I said that if Democrats are doing it then why aren't Republicans doing it -- the reason is that it isn't happening (at least on the scale that some are talking about).

Lol on the Space Force thing, but yeah -- the Feds are the people that investigate this, so if Trump really thinks that he can back his claims he could form task forces and such to combat this. Could literally just sign an executive order tomorrow directing them to investigate claims of this.

It really comes down to the fact that there are more Democrats that don't vote than Republicans, and if we make it easier to vote, there will be more Democrat than Republican voters who wouldn't have voted otherwise.  

In other words, anything that makes it easier to vote = win for Democrats.  Harder to vote = win for Republicans.

When Democrats try to make it easier to vote, Republicans accuse them of allowing voter fraud.
When Republicans try to make it harder to vote, Democrats accuse them of voter suppression.
That's how it's been for years.  It's just politics.

I'm sure if it were the other way around, we'd see the same arguments being made.  Democrats would be the one pushing laws to make it harder to vote and Republicans would be accusing them of voter suppression.

Trump is taking it to a whole new level.  In 2016 he said lost the popular vote by 3 million votes only because there were up to 5 million illegal votes cast for Clinton.  He's already laying the ground work for 2020 claiming it will be the most rigged election in history.  He's also convinced many that there is exactly a 0% chance that he will lose in November.  A narrow Democratic victory in Nov could actually be a disaster.

Eh I don't think that all of the Republican ideas about securing the voter system is bad. I do think that it is very important to ensure that every vote in the US is done by a citizen of the US that has the right to vote by the guidelines established by their state.

Do I think that you should be required to have an ID to be vote? Yes - but if this is a requirement in your state, I think the state should pay for the ID card for all people (or I guess those under a certain income level)

Do I think that you should purge the voting rolls at some point that is determined by independent researchers / experts (and not the governor) yes.

So, yeah.

[1715024032]

1715024032

[1715024032]

1715024032

[TwitchySeal]

I don't think we have to set it up to the degree of -- potential to change the outcome of an election -- but I still do agree with the sentiment here. I doubt there are many cases that can be found of voter fraud to begin with, let along with the chance of changing the outcome of the election.

A vote that is illegal is a problem even if it doesn't change the outcome of the election -- effectively it cancels out the vote of someone who is legally allowed to vote. But yes, there should obviously be more attention given to the time where the outcome of the election was (or could've) been altered.

Absolutely, fraud is fraud and needs to be prosecuted regardless if it's successful or not. I'm just saying that this whole idea that Democrats (or Republicans) engage in election fraud on a massive scale is far from a "documented fact" and it doesn't really make much sense that a political party commits such massive fraud but it doesn't affect the outcome and they never get caught.

BTW many types of election fraud are federal crimes even if committed in local elections. So the conspiracy theory that states are hiding something doesn't make much sense either. Trump could send the FBI (or the Space Force since he obviously doesn't trust the FBI) and blow this thing wide open.

Oh yeah you're totally right when it comes to this. This is why I said that if Democrats are doing it then why aren't Republicans doing it -- the reason is that it isn't happening (at least on the scale that some are talking about).

Lol on the Space Force thing, but yeah -- the Feds are the people that investigate this, so if Trump really thinks that he can back his claims he could form task forces and such to combat this. Could literally just sign an executive order tomorrow directing them to investigate claims of this.

It really comes down to the fact that there are more Democrats that don't vote than Republicans, and if we make it easier to vote, there will be more Democrat than Republican voters who wouldn't have voted otherwise.  

In other words, anything that makes it easier to vote = win for Democrats.  Harder to vote = win for Republicans.

When Democrats try to make it easier to vote, Republicans accuse them of allowing voter fraud.
When Republicans try to make it harder to vote, Democrats accuse them of voter suppression.
That's how it's been for years.  It's just politics.

I'm sure if it were the other way around, we'd see the same arguments being made.  Democrats would be the one pushing laws to make it harder to vote and Republicans would be accusing them of voter suppression.

Trump is taking it to a whole new level.  In 2016 he said lost the popular vote by 3 million votes only because there were up to 5 million illegal votes cast for Clinton.  He's already laying the ground work for 2020 claiming it will be the most rigged election in history.  He's also convinced many that there is exactly a 0% chance that he will lose in November.  A narrow Democratic victory in Nov could actually be a disaster.

Eh I don't think that all of the Republican ideas about securing the voter system is bad. I do think that it is very important to ensure that every vote in the US is done by a citizen of the US that has the right to vote by the guidelines established by their state.

Do I think that you should be required to have an ID to be vote? Yes - but if this is a requirement in your state, I think the state should pay for the ID card for all people (or I guess those under a certain income level)

Do I think that you should purge the voting rolls at some point that is determined by independent researchers / experts (and not the governor) yes.

So, yeah.

Yeah, I agree with you on the voter ids.

I'm just saying if more voters benefited Republicans instead of Democrats, it would be the Democrats pushing for voter ids and Republicans pushing back.

I'm not sure what the 'best' system looks like, but it's somewhere between what the dems want and what the republicans want.  Oh, and (eventually) it involves some sort of block chain.  No paper ballots.

[squatz1]

Yeah, I agree with you on the voter ids.

I'm just saying if more voters benefited Republicans instead of Democrats, it would be the Democrats pushing for voter ids and Republicans pushing back.

I'm not sure what the 'best' system looks like, but it's somewhere between what the dems want and what the republicans want.  Oh, and (eventually) it involves some sort of block chain.  No paper ballots.

I mean, maybe. I'm not sure I'm onboard the thought process of that the only reason that Republicans are pushing for these policies is because it will (probably) benefit them when election time comes around. The same thought process shows that Democrats are not going to support these because it (potentially) hurts them when it comes to their voters coming out and voting.

It's all about politics and power, but at a certain point some politicians do truly have some ideals that they think will help to protect the integrity of the voting process -- which is where ID's being used during voter comes up. Yet again I want to stress that if a state wants to do that, they should be providing the ID free of charge or they're going to be WILLINGLY putting undue burden onto those in the lower class.

[TECSHARE]

[google results for 'voter fraud trump won popular vote']

You can type anything into google and find media reports to back up whatever argument you can think of.

They're all sensationalized and don't prove anything other than 'voter fraud happens'.  And nobody is arguing whether or not voter fraud happens.  It does.  There is proof it happens.  We all know it happens.

I randomly just clicked on this one:

"Voter Fraud Rampant in Sanctuary Cities"

https://www.libertyheadlines.com/fraud-rampant-sanctuary/

Continuing a series of reports on rampant fraud in voter registration and participation, the Public Interest Legal Foundation this week reported that more than 3,100 non-citizens registered to vote in just 13 “sanctuary cities” in the past decade.

This comes on the heels of a report last week that 19 illegal aliens were charged with voting in North Carolina in the 2016 presidential election.

The article is more about immigration than any voter fraud, but we learned that there were 19 illegal aliens that voted in NC.  They were charged. Over the past 10 years 3,120 names were removed from the voter registry because the person requested it themselves, it was a mistake at the dmv or shit like that.

So yeah.  Voter fraud happens.  Good job.

[You can put "space aliens" into google! Proof space doesn't exist!]

This is such a pathetic strawman argument designed to avoid addressing any of the information I presented, because you know you have no response to it. I wasn't talking about NC, I was talking about California, and I presented LOTS of evidence voter fraud is RAMPANT in California. It just so happens that without California, Hillary Clinton would have no "popular vote" advantage whatsoever, but lets keep pretending these things can't effect elections, because you can find "space aliens" in google.

Eh I don't think that all of the Republican ideas about securing the voter system is bad. I do think that it is very important to ensure that every vote in the US is done by a citizen of the US that has the right to vote by the guidelines established by their state.

Do I think that you should be required to have an ID to be vote? Yes - but if this is a requirement in your state, I think the state should pay for the ID card for all people (or I guess those under a certain income level)

Do I think that you should purge the voting rolls at some point that is determined by independent researchers / experts (and not the governor) yes.

So, yeah.

Yet every time some one tries to pass voter ID laws, the Democrats prevent it and call it racist and claim it is disenfranchising poor/black voters. They play the same games when they try to clean up voter rolls. You need an ID to get a gun. You need an ID to buy liquor. Needing an ID to vote though, that is unacceptable! The idea that this $10 or $15 it costs to get issued an ID is disenfranchising any legitimate voters is fucking asinine.

Yeah, I agree with you on the voter ids.

I'm just saying if more voters benefited Republicans instead of Democrats, it would be the Democrats pushing for voter ids and Republicans pushing back.

I'm not sure what the 'best' system looks like, but it's somewhere between what the dems want and what the republicans want.  Oh, and (eventually) it involves some sort of block chain.  No paper ballots.

You know what that is called? An assumption. Weird how simple things like voter ID laws and cleaning up voter rolls are so heavily resisted by Democrats even though you seem to agree these are prudent steps to assure election integrity. I guess as long as none of the illegals voting are Russians it is fine right?

[Spendulus]

.....
Weird how simple things like voter ID laws and cleaning up voter rolls are so heavily resisted by Democrats even though you seem to agree these are prudent steps to assure election integrity. I guess as long as none of the illegals voting are Russians it is fine right?

This is one of those issues that's incredibly boring because the chatter on the surface is all lies, and never stops.

Really, everyone KNOWS Democrats want to stretch their ability to stuff ballot boxes, and have for a long time. But anytime you discuss the matter, they deny it and talk about "rights." Then the discussion is misdirected into their little rabbit hole.

But it really is all about stealing elections. Always was, always will be.

[btcusury]

Fortunately the world is not limited to what you recall. Lets just call documented fact "conspiracy theory" and pretend like it doesn't exist. I guess voter fraud is only important when it doesn't serve your interests.

You have extremely flexible standards of what passes for a "documented fact". The NC 9th district case was a serious one, they had to re-run the election. A republican still won BTW so there is an argument to be made that even this case of fraud didn't really change the outcome.

How many such cases can you show let's say in the last 20 years? Proven in the court of law, with the potential to change the outcome of an election.

Weird how the only case you think is serious is the single one that supports your bias. It is almost like you have no principles and think the ends justify the means, and gaining power at any cost is acceptable to you.

Hahaha, yeah, moral relativism and social darwinism is the bread and butter of leftist NPC brainwashing.

Killary won the popular vote durr durr, cuz they were both competing to win the popular vote didn't you know? Abolish electoral college! Hell let's abolish the electorate, why can't we just choose the good guys, the progressives, the ones that will give us money?

Anyway, ima vote for Joe cuz he's senile so no longer a rapist and Trump is racist and something about Russian collusion.

[TwitchySeal]

But anytime you discuss the matter, they deny it and talk about "rights."

And then they quote the 'constitution'.  So annoying.

[TECSHARE]

But anytime you discuss the matter, they deny it and talk about "rights."

And then they quote the 'constitution'.  So annoying.

All of a sudden the left cares about the constitution. That's funny.

[TwitchySeal]

Apparently Trump tear gassed his way across the street for a photo op in front of St Johns. (a very cool old church that got set on fire 2 days ago)

"It's a Bible," Trump told reporters as he held it up for photos outside the boarded-up church.

I am the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington and was not given even a courtesy call, that they would be clearing [the area] with tear gas so they could use one of our churches as a prop.

The president did not pray when he came to St. John’s, nor … did he acknowledge the agony of our country right now, and in particular, the people of color in our nation who wonder if anyone in public power will ever acknowledge their sacred work, and who are rightfully demanding an end to 400 years of systemic racism and white supremacy in our country,

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/01/mariann-edgar-budde-slams-trump-church-visit-after-george-floyd-protesters-tear-gassed/5313842002/


I think he picked the wrong church.  oops.

[Spendulus]

But anytime you discuss the matter, they deny it and talk about "rights."

And then they quote the 'constitution'.  So annoying.

Actually I already covered that, except I said it was boring, not annoying:

This is one of those issues that's incredibly boring because the chatter on the surface is all lies, and never stops.

Really, everyone KNOWS Democrats want to stretch their ability to stuff ballot boxes, and have for a long time. But anytime you discuss the matter, they deny it and talk about "rights." Then the discussion is misdirected into their little rabbit hole.

But it really is all about stealing elections. Always was, always will be.

[TECSHARE]

Apparently Trump tear gassed his way across the street for a photo op in front of St Johns. (a very cool old church that got set on fire 2 days ago)

[img ]https://i.gyazo.com/6690ec9fa7934e00d141343c2810b5a5.png[/img]

[img ]https://media.graytvinc.com/images/690*394/AP_20153836517351+(1).jpg[/img]

"It's a Bible," Trump told reporters as he held it up for photos outside the boarded-up church.

I am the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington and was not given even a courtesy call, that they would be clearing [the area] with tear gas so they could use one of our churches as a prop.

The president did not pray when he came to St. John’s, nor … did he acknowledge the agony of our country right now, and in particular, the people of color in our nation who wonder if anyone in public power will ever acknowledge their sacred work, and who are rightfully demanding an end to 400 years of systemic racism and white supremacy in our country,

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/01/mariann-edgar-budde-slams-trump-church-visit-after-george-floyd-protesters-tear-gassed/5313842002/


I think he picked the wrong church.  oops.

Not protestors. They have long since passed being protestors. These are rioters.

[tvbcof]

Not protestors. They have long since passed being protestors. These are rioters.

I wonder if the paramilitaries draw straws to see who is going to play the role of a rioter and who is going to play the role of riot control for a given operation?



"By way of deception, thou shalt do war"

[TECSHARE]

Not protestors. They have long since passed being protestors. These are rioters.

I wonder if the paramilitaries draw straws to see who is going to play the role of a rioter and who is going to play the role of riot control for a given operation?

[img width=600 ]https://i0.wp.com/prosportsextra.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/img_4870.jpg?w=1242&ssl=1[/img]

"By way of deception, thou shalt do war"

While I absolutely agree police have operated as provocateurs in the past, and there is a lot of evidence to support that fact, this individual case is very inconclusive. You can hardly claim to be able to identify that man just based on a gas mask adorned face. Furthermore the one ID the police officer was his ex-wife, bringing to question her own motives. I do agree though however these riots are being driven by organized efforts and provocateurs. This however doesn't mean these aren't still riots long since past being protests. I have personally witnessed this subversion process during Occupy Wallstreet. It happens with nearly every protest group over time.

[Gyfts]

Joe Biden's official delegate count is at 1903, so technically not "official" quite yet.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/elections/delegate-count-primary-results.html?action=click&module=ELEX_results&pgtype=Interactive&region=Navigation

Important election today in Iowa though where Republican Steve King lost. He's been a representative for Iowa since 2003. He was ousted by his party for saying some controversial remarks saying "White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive" and was almost immediately shut down by all Republican leaders. It's no surprise he lost tonight and democrats are celebrating but most Republicans aren't going to miss the dude either.

[squatz1]

Joe Biden's official delegate count is at 1903, so technically not "official" quite yet.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/elections/delegate-count-primary-results.html?action=click&module=ELEX_results&pgtype=Interactive&region=Navigation

Important election today in Iowa though where Republican Steve King lost. He's been a representative for Iowa since 2003. He was ousted by his party for saying some controversial remarks saying "White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive" and was almost immediately shut down by all Republican leaders. It's no surprise he lost tonight and democrats are celebrating but most Republicans aren't going to miss the dude either.

The guy is the nominee, doesn't really matter if the delegate count isn't enough right now. He has enough delegates -- and if needed, enough super delegate support to win on 2nd ballot -- what we're going to be talking about in terms of 2020 democrats is who Bidens VP is going to be. Betting odds is showing Kamala Harris as the front-runner, and Stacy Abrams a bit bit behind.

Steve King is gone, good. Both parties are happy. Republicans don't need to be embarrassed by King anymore.

[Gyfts]

Some Texas polls came out for Biden vs. Trump and they're not looking good. We're super early so polls aren't all that relevant but you cannot be a Republican incumbent and be within the margin of error for a state like Texas.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/tx/texas_trump_vs_biden-6818.html

Recent Quinnipiac poll has Trump 44, Biden 43; conducted 5/28 - 6/1.

Looks like people really don't like where things are with Trump right now and I imagine the George Floyd incident has a lot to do with it. His twitter feed was a bit more out of control than normal and there were advisors that urged Trump to deliver a unifying message from the oval office during the peak of the riots but he refused.

For reference, Romney vs. Obama polls had a RCP average of nearly 16 points: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/tx/texas_romney_vs_obama-1945.html

The actual results for the state turned out to be just about spot on.

[KingScorpio]

american democracy is a fraud a 100% nonracist president trump is being dismantled and internally attack to appoint a new openly racist one by the democrats. (biden)

the entire democratic left is a racist movement

they use racist terms like "black owned" like there is nothing wrong about it. they are sick people trump is about revealing all of this!!!

its not the republicans that are racist, its the democrats now. look the way they are using race in their identity politics slang. usa is a shitty society.

[squatz1]

Some Texas polls came out for Biden vs. Trump and they're not looking good. We're super early so polls aren't all that relevant but you cannot be a Republican incumbent and be within the margin of error for a state like Texas.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/tx/texas_trump_vs_biden-6818.html

Recent Quinnipiac poll has Trump 44, Biden 43; conducted 5/28 - 6/1.

Looks like people really don't like where things are with Trump right now and I imagine the George Floyd incident has a lot to do with it. His twitter feed was a bit more out of control than normal and there were advisors that urged Trump to deliver a unifying message from the oval office during the peak of the riots but he refused.

For reference, Romney vs. Obama polls had a RCP average of nearly 16 points: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/tx/texas_romney_vs_obama-1945.html

The actual results for the state turned out to be just about spot on.

Yeah this is looking pretty horrible right now. I'm not sure if the good ole 'the polls are wrong' are going to be true twice when it comes to Trump. I'd think that they're going to now lean in Trumps favor b/c of the amount they fucked the polls up in 2020.

Not a big fan of RCL, as they don't weight the good polls and the bad polls as a way to correct them. Would much rather use 538 - https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/ - but in any case, this doesn't look good and I think it's fair to say that Trump is taking a real beating from his decisions after the death of George Floyd and the protest following.

It's totally not a good look when you have peaceful protestors outside of the WH and you teargas / rubber bullet them to take a picture. Maybe the base will like the show of force, but that's not the way to convince independents and democrats to vote for you.

But yeah, we are very far out and things could change quickly. Time will only tell if this time is different for Trump.

[TECSHARE]

...It's totally not a good look when you have peaceful protestors outside of the WH and you teargas / rubber bullet them to take a picture. Maybe the base will like the show of force, but that's not the way to convince independents and democrats to vote for you.

But yeah, we are very far out and things could change quickly. Time will only tell if this time is different for Trump.

Yeah everyone knows the way to get your base to vote for you is by encouraging rioting and doing nothing to stop it. Then when the president tries to stop it with The National Guard, you refuse and intentionally allow the rioting to expand and disband the police. Additionally be sure to use the riots as a biological weapon against your constituents, and also excuse that unless of course they voted for Trump, then in that case actual legitimate protesting is bad and kills grandmas. That is how you win hearts and minds.

[TwitchySeal]

But yeah, we are very far out and things could change quickly. Time will only tell if this time is different for Trump.

Can't agree more.

Seems likely that things will change quickly several times between now and November.  Buckle up - if you haven't already.